Exactly how did the chief of NATO end up talking about Russia and environmentalists? It's incredible. Of course Russia will want to keep Europe buying gas and of course shale gas has the potential to harm to a degree that we don't even understand or study.

I used to be opposed to fracking. Now I'm only opposed to the kind of dubious practices I've heard of from the US and acknowledged that 1) energy independence and b) CO2 emission difference between natural gas and coal/oil are important and can somewhat mitigate the unattractiveness of the choice, which by itself really doesn't have much going for it. Taking all of these three into account, I'm now at a point at which I'm back to being unsure/undetermined on the issue. I'm not liking it, but the same is true for the alternatives. It's shit on all sides.

I don't really understand the issue enough either way. All I know is that with the amount of money involved, its very hard to imagine us being told the true story if there is a large environmental impact.

Everyone knows Russia has an interest in keeping Europe buying their gas, in the same way fracking companies have a vested interest in glossing over any problems with the process. Not sure why this is newsworthy tbh.

The chief of NATO's main job is the security of Western Europe. Western Europe's energy security (a facet of security just like border security or couter-insurgency) is heavily dependant on Russian gas and is slated to increase yearly. How is it a surprise to you that he would be talking about his job?

Reddit, where watching gas land once makes you an expert in energy and geopolitics.
If you really think the world will substantially reduce its dependence on fossil fuels in only 15 years you are delusional....

Yeah it's pretty well known many redditors are complete, fucking idiots. Industry experts are now called shills, and their decades of technical expertise should be dismissed because they work for the energy industry. And bloggers from Huffington post and AlterNet.org are to be lionized even though they have no experience in the industry, do not understand technical terms, cannot interpret technical data, and do not understand the chemistry and geology at any level to understand even an iota of the processes involved in hydraulic fracturing.

Well it would be nice if we lived in a world where we knew which of the 'experts' we could actually trust. As you say most people have not a clue about the technicalities of these matters. I'm sure anyone well versed in the subjective could present a convincing argument either way.
With the amount of money at stake here its not a huge leap to suspect that the big companies have a vested interest in having fracking look as clean as possible.

Very true, it goes both ways and you just have to follow the money, see who is funding the research, and you'll see the reasoning behind the conclusion. What we have to remember is fracking is a very complex operation with many steps, and it is relatively new. We cannot overlook the amount of cheap, clean, natural gas we have at our finger tips. At the same time though we need to put smart regulations on fracking that push for safer and cleaner methods, but don't substantially hinder the industry. There is no simple solution, it's annoying that the people who yell the most are usually the most influential and most of the time they are the most ignorant of what is really happening.

The cost of renewables has fallen due to economies of scale, as predicted. Wind is now cheaper than almost anything and we have an abundance of it.

Fifteen years is awfully quick when it comes to large scale construction projects, but these are still happening at an ever-quickening pace. Germany is already above 50% from solar alone. Fifteen years, while optimistic, is not outside the realm of possibility.

Renewables are definitely getting there, but you need a mix to have a truly reliable grid. Germany is a great example but I remember hearing somewhere that they just got a 20% rate hike because of renewables and they already pay the highest prices in Europe. But wind is promising, and personally I think the turbines are really neat looking.

I'm failing to see how I've been an Asshole. My first point was that a majority of people here don't have a background in the energy industry and can't make an educated opinion. After that I ask that anyone that wants to have an educated debate have some sort of understanding of the topic that is not based on biased documentaries full of false information. It's that too much to ask?

It is in this community, yes. If you want a real discussion go to /r/science or anything that isn't /r/worldshit. Time and again I see what could be useful or informative comments get derailed by children.

/r/worldnews isn't a place to get informed, it's a place where the news goes to die.

Sadly you're right. And this cold really be an interesting topic. A country using global warming to advance their own agenda is really a huge deal. We need to do something about our energy needs, and have a good balance of fossil and renewables but as long as we have people like this derailing educated discussions about clean energy and the advancement of a relatively safe method of obtaining oil and gas, fracking, we will go no where.

I think a lot of the problem is that because we can't have an educated opinion we have to rely on the people who DO have the knowledge.
And with the amounts of money involved its hard to know who can and can't be trusted.

So you watched gas land I'm guessing? Exactly my point. See you hate pro petroleum people because you claim they are ignorant to science, then when someone who has worked in the industry, done research and knows the science doesn't approve of your ideas you make stuff up. If you don't like chemicals in your breakfast tell me where the plastic that holds your milk comes from, the machinery that automates dairy farms that reduce cost and make milk available to you comes from, the power to use those machines, transport and sell milk cones from. And then tell me how many acres of land have to be cleared for a solar farm our wind farm to be made that equals one 1200MW combined cycle power plant. Tell me how many petrochemicals go into the construction of that plant and then tell me the cost difference. You'll see very quickly that the perfect world 100% renewables is not possible in the foreseeable future.

Haven't watched gas land, nor have I ever heard of it. I don't hate people that want to poison the earth, I pity them, and seek to block them from destroying it. For the record, factory farms, plastic manufacturers, drillers, miners are all part and parcel of the same environmental destruction that I oppose. People like you seem to assume that everyone is perfectly happy with society, and that we want all the "benefits" we enjoy, without all the downsides of supplying those "benefits". My view is that you don't destroy the earth - period. Whatever standard of living you can achieve within that one basic parameter - not destroying the earth - is one that is fine with me. The crux of the issue, which very few people are willing to address, is that the Earth, and its resources, are finite and not infinite. Once one acknowledges that basic fact, everything else is clear. The simple fact is that the worlds finite resources are being despoiled because the earth is vastly overpopulated. Reasonable people could debate what level of population the earth could sustain without suffering extreme environmental damage, but nobody reasonable can suggest that the earth can support an infinite number of people.

For arguments sake, if there were only 100 people on the planet, each one of them could burn huge stacks of coal in their backyard all day and have no measurable effect on the environment. Each person could catch 100 fish every day and still the oceans would not be overfished. Each person could cut down as many trees as they wanted to build as big of a house as they wanted, without deforesting the planet. Now assume we have 50 billion people living on the planet. Well if each person catches just 1 fish each, all the fish are gone. If each person cuts down one tree, there are no more trees. If each person burns a pile of coal, the skies are black with soot.

I'm not suggesting that we start killing people off, I'm suggesting that all of our environmental problems stem from overpopulation, an issue that could be addressed in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, the ultra rich who run our society profit tremendously from each worker and built a debt based economic system that is basically a giant pyramid scheme. As long as more and more workers and consumers are shoveled into the bottom of the pyramid, the people on the top can continue to cash out. It's why you hear the false propaganda about how aging societies are in trouble without enough workers to support the retired. The facts are that productivity gains far, far outstrip productivity lost to retiring workers. But since those gains are pocketed by the ultra rich instead of being fairly distributed among the people, we are left with the situation we are in today. This is what makes the environment and population such hot-button issues. To address these issues means addressing the way our whole broken society/economy is constructed, and the people running the debate and reaping huge profits have no interest in that.

So bring the downvotes, call me a loon for pointing out the obvious fact that the earth is indeed finite, and carry on singing the praises of fossil fuels.

I understand your view point, we need to find some sort of middle ground. But where do you draw the line?
Taking your post 100% at face value, do you wish to not have electricity? The materials required to have a 100% renewable energy energy system simply don't appear out of no where. A majority of them are petrochemicals. Take the lubricating fluid for wind turbine bearings for example. The bearings inside the generator melt without lubrication and those lubricants are petrochemicals. The plastics for solar panels, petrochemicals.

Now over crowding, sure, eventually we will not have the resources to sustain all the people and we will have to leave this planet. To prevent that do you want to use population control? I would rather learn, advance technology, and bet that we as humans will find a solution to our problem. More importantly I would rather be free and not have to deal with government legislated population control lol

The issue of overpopulation isn't an issue of overcrowding, its an issue of overuse of the earths resources. Overfished oceans, miles wide garbage islands of plastic, hundreds of industrial chemicals flowing through the veins of every human being, deforestation, poor air quality, shortage of fresh water, mass extinctions. I haven't even touched on the issue of nitrogen injection into soil. While this has vastly increased food output for the last few decades, it is also rendering the soil dead and lifeless. If you have a lifeboat built for 10 people, it doesn't matter how you stack them or ration your supplies, 100 people aren't going to be able to live on that lifeboat for very long, and the longer they go on the worse conditions will get.

To prevent that do you want to use population control? I would rather learn, advance technology, and bet that we as humans will find a solution to our problem. More importantly I would rather be free and not have to deal with government legislated population control lol

I would rather that aliens came down and picked up a bunch of people and dropped them off somewhere else, but we have to live in reality. The earth is already severely damaged due to human activity and its getting worse every day. We simply don't have the decades or centuries to wait until we figure out how to offload people to other planets. You say you'd rather be free of government legislated population control. You are not free now. For example, all of these communications are being monitored, stored, and analyzed by the NSA (and god knows who else). That is not freedom. That the government has the power and money and size to waste countless billions spying on us is another sign of overpopulation. Right now, the government proactively supports increasing population. The government pays people to have children via subsidies and tax breaks. One very simple first step would be to reverse that policy, and offer subsidies and tax breaks for people who didn't have children, rather then for those that did. The government pays extra welfare benefits to those who have children. Ignorant people point out that a child costs far more then the increased benefit, but intelligent people know that many on welfare are children and are not thinking about the big picture. If you tell an inner city 16 year old kid with 2 babies that are being raised by her mother that she will get an extra $150 loaded on her welfare card each month for every extra baby she pops out, what do you think her mental calculus is? What if you told her that for every extra baby she popped out, she'd lose $150 from her card each month. We could offer $5,000 for everyone who gets a vasectomy. Extend that program globally.

Makes sense for Russia to be opposed to fracking. Any attempt to diversify the energy supply will probably come at the expense of Russian oil- and gas-exports, and thus at the expense of the Russian economy.

Well, I got downvoted into oblivion. I wonder what part drove people to do it. Right, anything Russian, downvote.

Fuck. The Cold War is basically back on. I'm not even Russian. lol.

The fracking industry is right now funding a disinformation campaign, to now discredit environmentalists, by saying they're getting funded by the Russians. It's in their interests to discredit those that oppose fracking. Simple as that. It's likely the opposite of what they're promoting.

Russia's energy market is damaged by Western nations accessing previously unobtainable gas and oil depositions. It's in their interests to work against Western energy independence in order to protect their economy and pressure Europe with threats of gas shortages each winter.

Keeping Europe dependent on their energy exports is an existential part of Russian foreign policy, as it gives them precious leverage whenever some shenanigans go on like the annexation of countries. They threaten to turn off the gas, and then Germany gets quiet.

And yet I don't hear about evil plots against solar and wind energy nor a readiness to adopt these technologies to achieve energy independence.

It's all GOGOGO fossil fuels, just make sure you buy them from the 'right' guys even if that's the more expensive and more polluting option. Let's ship shale gas converted to LNG across the world because our corporations don't believe in a free market economy.

And yet I don't hear about evil plots against solar and wind energy nor a readiness to adopt these technologies to achieve energy independence.

That's neither here nor now. LNG is a contemporary reality and as such orders of magnitude more strategic and important in the immediate future of geopolitics. 15 years from now we'll see green solutions become more essential, and subsequently more attention. Fracking in Western Europe however directly threatens the short-term* future of the Russian energy export market.

The US has a ban on exporting domestic oil. What American conspiracy is keeping Scandinavian oil out of Europe? The US doesn't export oil to Europe (or anyone) so I'm not sure your theory holds any water.

Someone, and we all know the obvious answer, is sabotaging Europe's energy security. The EU should reevaluate its cooperation with the US if it wants to avoid an energy shortage during winter. The confrontation with Russia is extremely counterproductive, considering Russia's potential markets in East Asia.

Thank fuck there are still Europeans that can connect the dots. Thank you man, I've been here for quite a few years and only recently am I starting to see these types of comments not get absolutely shat on with shill accusations, the minute they are posted.

yes of course. everyone in against fracking is a putin agent, everyone against war in the middle east is a putin agent, everyone who minds civilians getting slaughtered in east ukraine is a putin agent, everyone who thinks us dollar is a worthless piece of paper is a putin agent, everyone who doesn't believe in CNN is a putin agent, everyone who leaks information about the secret negotions of the state is a putin agent, everyone who is publishing documents about the mass spying is a putin agent, everyone who doesn't accuse everyone else of being a putin agent in the comments of any russia related story is a putin agent

Whether or not fracking is good for the environment, the day that Europe stop importing Russian oil and gas, Russia loses any power it has over Europe. Morever, Russia is a petro-economy - it would go bankrupt.

Next we'll be hearing that climate change denial isn't being caused by idiots and conservatives in the USA. It's the Russians. Welcome to Cold War Propaganda, V2.0.

When do we get to see the scare mongering about the dehumanized, heartless, evil, communists. Oh yah, Captain America, it's already here. Underground Nazi's, and Commy starred robot arms. Go figure, America vilianizes it's two rivals. Germans and Russians. I'm sure this has nothing to do with being power hungry and keeping your rivals down. Let's not forget the training we all get from enemies in video games being Russians. Everyone loves to shoot Russian enemies in the head, amirite. Call of Duty, fu. Why don't you be fair, and make the enemy American once in a while.

Yeah, its getting really annoying to hear how our government blames everything on russians. meanwhile they dont even try to repair our economy , instead they only make it worse by stealing,spending on an unecessary things like 6 NATO jetss(seriously,why we need them.rissia is not going to attack a nato member, and even if they did, 6 jets wont do shit against an invading army), stealing the budgets of unecessary projects like that gigantic library with broken lifts.

Canadian Ukrainian, here. That's the way the world works. People work for their own interests. Demonizing the Russians specifically, happens because someone benefits from it. The Americans are just as "evil" as you perceive the Russians to be. They just have a great PR industry to promote a fake image of themselves. America is a shit hole. The income disparity is actually equal to Russia. Just as many oligarchs there. See: GINI Coefficient. I put "evil" in quotes, because it's not evil. They're operating under the same rules as everyone else. Actually, Russia behaves better than the Americans. If Russia invades your baltic country, and causes 500k deaths in the 21st century, then we can talk.

Right now, they look like small time crooks compared to the Americans. But you know, whatever, those people would have all died anyways, they just died a bit sooner so America could achieve it's geopolitical goals. Just like Russia + Chechnya, but at a larger scale, with more civilian deaths.

Attempts to discredit Martin Luther King, Jr. by placing publications portraying him as an "Uncle Tom" who was secretly receiving government subsidies

Stirring up racial tensions in the United States by mailing bogus letters from the Ku Klux Klan, placing an explosive package in "the Negro section of New York" (operation PANDORA), and spreading conspiracy theories that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination had been planned by the US government

Starting rumors that fluoridated drinking water was in fact a plot by the US government to effect population control

Starting rumors that the moon landing was a hoax and the money ostensibly used by NASA was in actuality used by the CIA

Use of sympathetic elements in the press to libel the strategic defense initiative as an impractical "star wars" scheme

Fabrication of the story that AIDS virus was manufactured by US scientists at Fort Detrick; the story was spread by Russian-born biologist Jakob Segal

You know I keep trying to look up more information about each of the above, and I can't find anything that stands as definitive evidence for any of these "active measures." Maybe except for Agee, who seems to have a strange attraction to authoritarianism.

I know that the flat earth society creationists seemed to grab onto the moon landing hoax before anyone, and really that story could have been made up by any conspiratard.

Perhaps I'm missing keywords or something, but I expected copious data and investigations. A lot of the reference links at the bottom of the page don't seem to work either. So if you want to find some papers for me that actually stand as evidence, I'll gladly read through them.

I've heard that there is a 1.500.000.000.000$ gas field right under the place where war in Ukraine takes place. http://www.2b1stconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Chevron_Shell_Eni_Ukraine_Shale-gas_Map.png The othere big fields are under Odessa and Lviv. So we can expect some sort of genocide at all 3 spots since it's cheaper to spent money on war and remove all the citizens then to pay them for fracking enviroment damage. It's almost 1mil people living on that gas field near Slavyansk. I don't think that Shell who already bought that field expects to pay 3mil$ to each one like Aruba petroleum. So there are 1.500.000.000.000 arguments for war in Ukraine to go on.

A spokesman said: "Greenpeace had thirty of its people locked up in Russian prisons last year, threatened with fifteen years in jail.
"The idea we’re puppets of Putin is so preposterous that you have to wonder what they’re smoking over at Nato HQ.
"Mr Rasmussen should spend less time dreaming up conspiracy theories and more time on the facts.

"Greenpeace dismissed Mr Rasmussen's comments as "preposterous".
A spokesman said: "Greenpeace had thirty of its people locked up in Russian prisons last year, threatened with fifteen years in jail."

I don't see why Putin can't hate on Greenpeace for doing everything it can to slow arctic oil development/damage AND also want to help other environmentalist working against all the damage that fracking does for their own selfish reasons. So let me give everyone an extremely plausible scenario. Russia isn't in a secret DISINFORMATION plot against shale gas fracking, it's in a not so secret INFORMATION plot against shale gas fracking for it's own selfish monetary/foreign policy reasons. Only the chief of NATO can't call it an information campaign and stay the chief of NATO for very long.